John B
I’m afraid you have lobbed into a site where the ‘deny and delay brigade’ treat the IPCC and its reports with contempt and the science presented therein even more so. A few of us have tried to point them in the right direction but like they say, you can bring an ass to water but you can’t make it drink.

They trot out guff from the denialist blogosphere and jump on anything media shock-jocks or the ‘Green House Mafia’ spruik. They don’t survive in real science forums because they are shown up to be, well ... somewhat lacking.

I must say, it’s quite amusing sometimes ... we have people from accountants to religious zealots (including the rocket scientist author of this article) telling people like atmospheric physicists, oceanographers and palaeogeochemists, etc, etc they don’t know how to do their job and have got it all wrong.

mil-observer
Thanks, I understand very well.

Yup. And Big Al Gore got a Nobel, which speaks volumes. Now there's a guru with nought but money and ego. Go back and look at Al's inconvenient nonsense with its graphs from the ice cores. Consider his emotive silliness around polar bears. It got him a Nobel.

Again notice the misanthropic tendency of AGW, compelling inevitably a claim that the earth is overpopulated due to development in China and India especially. There is a logical direction for compatible policy responses to such mixture of AGW's loose theory with basic fact: genocide.

And "all standard EE theory for systems subject to an impulse". That is to mutate and then theoretize such simple and limited context onto an entirely different one with enormously different parameters and variables.

Q&A may abuse all you like with personal taunts, mockery and smugness, but it just demonstrates further that you've dicarded your critical faculties on this issue.

"Notice too how the Guardian article confuses the matter of clear industrial pollution (dead fish from sudden toxic spill) with the long-term hocus pocus. Can you understand?"

I can understand - I can.

Can you?

Q&A wrote: "I’m afraid you have lobbed into a site where the ‘deny and delay brigade’ treat the IPCC and its reports with contempt and the science presented therein even more so. A few of us have tried to point them in the right direction but like they say, you can bring an ass to water but you can’t make it drink."

I have to agree. You can point these guys to the peer-reviewed climate science journals, but you can't make them acknowledge what is is black & white: almost every single active climate scientist has accepted that humans are causing the current regime of climate change, and has moved on to study the impact and what we can do about it.

If you can get them to read the abstracts in legitimate science journals (which is nigh impossible in the first place), suddenly their explanation is:

(1) some tin-foil hat rant about a global conspiracy amongst climate scientists or government bodies trying to ensure their income; or

(2) some incoherent rambling about how science is a failure and should be replaced by their own mystical pseudo-scientific or metaphysical explanation of the world; or

(3) they point to one or three of the handful of climate scientists who dissent - invariably these particular scientists have links to fossil fuel industry funding.

The entire forum seems to have been reduced to the intellectual level of the Church of Scientology: there are a few intelligent people, unscrupulous, with vested interests, whipping up a frenzy amongst amongst a bunch of people that have little understanding of science, or do not want to understand, and who prefer to weave complicated conspiracy theories or repeat pseudo-scientific dogma.

PS: once again, I point out the the cooling claim is "nonsense" (in NASA's words):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
"there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

Sams: << The entire forum seems to have been reduced to the intellectual level of the Church of Scientology: there are a few intelligent people, unscrupulous, with vested interests, whipping up a frenzy amongst amongst a bunch of people that have little understanding of science, or do not want to understand, and who prefer to weave complicated conspiracy theories or repeat pseudo-scientific dogma. >>

Yup - certainly with respect to global warming anyway. That's why I mostly don't bother with OLO discussions about the subject, but it's heartening to see a few intelligent stalwarts showing up the denialists for what they are.

Sams, Q&A and CJ Morgan just look at the Southern Hemisphere temps .. where we live ….. just present your opinions as to why it has been trendless for thirty years. Go on ..... just tell me what i'm supposed to be seeing here with these temperature graphs that should make me feel alarmed. While you are at it please tell me what CO2 quota you have been given from your high priests.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3231